Further on this subject of the CDC misinforming the public about the systemic nature of dental fluorosis as an ADVERSE HEALTH effect, and encouraging dangerous consumption levels of fluoride by infants that have known lifelong adverse consequences, with unsubstantiated claims of benefit for permanent teeth:
Those of you who don't get FAN bulletins may not know that a formal ethics complaint has been filed against the CDC by the Lillie Center, a non-profit agency in Tennessee.
The complaint cites misleading and unsubstantiated statements about fluoride intake and effects, like the one Doug has identified below, rebuts them using the NRC report which the CDC by law is supposed to base its policies on, and then links the refusal of the CDC to change its false statements despite having nearly two years to incorporate the new scientific findings of the NRC, and the urging of thousands of government union scientists and professionals who have been involved in government funded research with findings of toxicity or adverse effects from fluoride, to specific sections of the CDC's code of ethics and the conduct of its principals like Gerberding, that are in violation of their own code. I think it is a dynamite piece of work and would love to be able to do the same thing here in Canada to the Canadian Dental Association and Health Canada.
The full text of the complaint is available on the FAN site.
Aliss
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] CDC sends mixed signals on fluoridated baby formula
From http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
Quote from the web page: "It is important to understand that some fluoride exposure to
developing teeth also plays a long-term role in preventing tooth decay. Parents and health
providers should weigh the balance between a child's risk for very mild or mild enamel
fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay and the need for dental
fillings."
MY COMMENTS: THIS WEB PAGE IS ALL ABOUT FLUORIDE AND BABY FORMULA. THUS, THE
CDC SAYS THAT SYSTEMIC FLUORIDE EXPOSURE FOR INFANTS PROVIDES A BENEFIT. IS
THE BENEFIT FOR PERMANENT TEETH AS WELL AS BABY TEETH? I'VE ASKED THE CDC THAT
QUESTION. I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THE BENEFIT OF SYSTEMIC
FLUORIDE IS LOST BY SEVERLY REDUCIING IT UNTIL THE TEETH ERUPT. I'M JUST USING THE
CDC'S LOGIC HERE, NOT MY OWN OPINIONS.
Questions and answers from the CDC web page:
"What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?"
"Parents should follow the advice of the formula manufacturer and their child's doctor for
the type of water appropriate for the formula they are using."
IN OTHER WORDS, THE CDC HAS NO RECOMMONDATION OF THEIR OWN. IF YOUR
DOCTOR SAYS ADD FLUORIDATED WATER TO FORMULA, THE CDC SAYS THAT'S FINE. IF
YOU HAVE A DOCTOR WHO'S EDUCATION CAME BETWEEN 1950 AND 2006, THEN THAT
DOCTOR IS LIKELY TO SAY ADD THE FLUORIDE.
"Are children today at greater risk for developing fluorosis from infant formula mixed with
fluoridated water than children in the past?"
"There has always been some level of very mild and mild fluorosis in children, but it was
thought to be caused by fluoride intake after age one."
I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT IF THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE. FLUORIDE INFANT DROPS HAVE
BEEN SOLD FOR DECADES. DID DENTAL RESEARCHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT YOU
COULD INCORPORATE FLUORIDE INTO DEVELOPING TEETH AND NOT HAVE FLUOROSIS?
-DOUG CRAGOE
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email